Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Absolutely. I only hope Leica is listening. After bringing out their tour de force, the M9, what better to top that than a full frame digital CL? Hell I'd buy one, I don't care if it cost $1000;~) Jim Laird On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at gmail.com> wrote: > The "proper" 35 mm frame portrait lens is based on two assumptions. First, > that when shooting at a distance of a dozen feet or so, you want the head > of > the subject to fill most of the frame; and second, that a lens in the 75 to > 105 mm range has a perspective similar to that of the normal eye. Both > assumptions are not quite as valid today as they were 50 years ago. Films > (and digital sensors) are better and will stand greater enlargement. Hence > a > small part of the image of a 50 mm lens can provide adequate resolution for > a normal sized print. Second, we have become used to the perspective > distortions of close up or long range photography. They are attention > getting. > > > When the Leica CL came out in the 1970's, Leica claimed that the 40 mm > Summicron-C and the 90 mm Elmar-C would suffice for 90% of the pictures > that > the average photographer would take. This is one of Leica's few PR > statements that I've found to be reasonably true. ?I traveled the world > with > a very lightweight Leica CL kit and rarely felt the need for additional > lenses. I even sold a number of the pictures. Of course this was in the era > before the super wide angle fad. Now I might add a 28 mm lens and finder. > Otherwise I would concur with Ted that the best portrait lens is the one > you > have on the camera when the opportunity presents itself. Actually, I never > bought the 90 mm Elmar since I already had a superb and razor sharp 100 mm > LTM Canon 3.5. Fitted with an adaptor flange it was lighter and matched the > RF frame lines better than the Leica lens. > > > Too bad that Leica (or Sony which now owns Minolta's camera business) never > saw fit to adapt the CL for digital. A full frame digital CL would blow > away > the Olympus and Panasonic pretenders. > > Larry Z > > - - - - - > > The argument over the "proper" focal length for portraits on the 24x36 > > format ?has been going on in 35mm since the Zeiss Contax camera came > out.... > > > 90mm ? ?( Leica RF) > > 85mm ? ( Contax RF) > > 105mm ? ( Nikon RF and later the Nikon F) > > 75mm ? (Leica RF) > > 80mm ? (Leica SLR) > > 100mm ? ( Leica SLR) > > > And I probably have forgotten a bunch more portrait lens focal lengths.... > > almost all of which are between 75 and 105mm > > > Use what you have, what makes you happy, or what you can afford..... > > > They all work. > > > Frank Filippone > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >